Which Came First: Paul’s Letters or the Synoptic Gospels?

Which Came First: Paul’s Letters or the Synoptic Gospels? March 23, 2017

All New Testament (NT) scholars agree that the Apostle Paul’s undisputed letters therein were written before the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written. I certainly don’t disagree with this, especially since I have no expertise on it. But what really came first, meaning the content of these documents? If the content of the synoptic gospels is based largely on oral tradition, as I think it is–so that those authors were not original in what they wrote but merely reported oral tradition established quite early and perhaps some non-extant, written tradition–then are NT scholars right in saying Paul’s content in his letters is antecedent to any parallel content in the synoptics? I think the answer has to be “no.” But granted, there isn’t a lot of parallel content between these two types of documents.

Now, I realize that one of the synoptic gospels is the Gospel of Matthew and that Matthew was one of Jesus’ chosen apostles. Thus, one would think that much of that gospel represented Matthew’s own recall of Jesus’ words and deeds that Matthew witnessed. But NT scholars tell us that the NT gospels originally did not have these titles, so that they were added later. If so, how can we be sure they were added by those gospel authors themselves? Furthermore, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John do not inform us about who wrote them. This silence suggests that at least the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are more properly identified as compilations of already established sources.

In fact, that is what Luke (a Gentile?) expressly says of his gospel. In his prologue he states, “many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1.1-2). Luke’s first clause, here, refers to some people who had written these things, and Luke’s second clause refers to earlier eyewitnesses who had “handed on to us,” surely meaning orally and probably meaning established oral tradition. Luke adds, “I decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account” (v. 3). He likely means that most of what he wrote in his gospel was oral and written tradition that he gathered.

As for the Gospel of Matthew, many scholars think it was produced by a church community, perhaps at Antioch, and that Matthew was counted among its members so that he verified most if not all of its content.

Concerning the Gospel of Mark, according to early church tradition it was written by John Mark who accompanied Paul and Barnabas in ministry and was a relative of Barnabas (Acts 12.25; Colossians 4.10). Early church father Papias wrote that this John Mark authored the Gospel of Mark while accompanying the Apostle Peter on missionary journeys in Italy, listening to Peter’s sermons. I have doubts about that due to some things in that gospel. But even if true, Mark could have compared what Peter said with already established oral tradition. And there are other similar scenarios that are possible.

I think it helps NT gospel readers a lot to understand what likely happened after the Christ event. Jesus’ disciples were discouraged when he was executed. But then they discovered Sunday morning that his body was missing from the tomb. Then he literally appeared to them hours later and multiple times over a period of the next forty days. Nothing else can explain how they then became emboldened to go out into the world and preach this gospel of the risen Jesus, even forfeiting their lives to death in doing so.

But even before that world evangelistic program got cranking, the disciples who had witnessed Jesus must have gathered together in various locales to reminisce, thus remembering what he did and said. And they would have been scouring what we Christians call the Old Testament, trying to understand how Jesus as the promised Messiah of Israel had to die, which was completely foreign to what they had been taught in their Jewish religious tradition. In doing so, these early disciples of Jesus created what scholars call “the first Jesus traditions.” I think this is the main, original source of the NT gospels. And for me, this concept makes it much easier to trust the content of these gospels rather than attributing each of them to a single author. That is, I can much more easily believe what a group of eyewitnesses recollect together about events than I can a single person. Sure, some readers will say that I’m not considering how the Holy Spirit would be involved, such as Jesus stated in John 14.26: “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.” No, I am. I think the establishment of oral tradition was the divine program and that it was engineered by God’s Spirit.

Regardless of how the synoptic gospels were authored or compiled, if we accept all of the ten New Testament letters that are internally attributed to Paul, biblical scholars tell us that these letters span a time period of approximately 50-65 CE. But it is most likely that Jewish-Christian communities had already created solid oral tradition about Jesus, which surely included much reminiscing by Jesus’ selected apostles, prior to 50 CE. If so, that means content in the synoptic gospels originated prior to similar content in Paul’s letters. This way of looking at this NT written evidence therefore disregards the mode of communication–whether by written form or oral form–and only regards the origin of the communication itself.

In conclusion, concerning any parallel content in the synoptic gospels and Paul’s letters, the former really came first since it was based mostly on earlier oral tradition, which Paul sometimes used too.


Browse Our Archives